The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Sunday, 2 January 2011

Game assumes that women evolved sexual preferences for alpha males (however defined). Unfortunately, this argument assumes that female choice actually mattered for most of human history. However, if men's actions alone decided reproductive outcomes, women simply could not evolve advanced sexual preferences. My recent reading supports the argument that female opinion or choice exerted little or no effect on reproductive outcomes, leaving Game a largely peripheral strategy for achieving sexual success. The whole Sexy Son argument underpinning Game is largely neutralised by the overwhelming evidence from history, genetics and archaeology. Let us proceed to that evidence...

This article suggests that Ghengis Khan is the ancestor of 1 in 12 asiatic males, via conquest and harems:

GENGHIS KHAN has been identified as the most successful alpha male in human history, according to a book by an Oxford geneticist.The Mongol emperor inseminated so many women in his 40-year career raping and pillaging across Asia that he created a pool of at least 16m male descendants who today carry his Y, or male, chromosome.

British men are now being offered the opportunity of genetic testing by Oxford scientists to see if they have inherited Genghis’s “super-Y”, which conferred such power on its originator.

Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University and author of Adam’s Curse, a study of the Y chromosome, believes recent migration could have spread a few of Genghis’s super-virile progeny as far as the British Isles.

Sykes, who runs Oxford Ancestors, a commercial enterprise that analyses people’s DNA and traces their geographical origins, said: “Genghis Khan was probably the most successful breeder of males ever, and there is every possibility that men here will carry his chromosome.”

The Y chromosome is passed unchanged from father to son and, in the 13th century, Genghis’s empire stretched from Mongolia to Afghanistan, Russia and Iran.

Oxford scientists took samples of male DNA in 16 locations across Asia and found the same Y chromosome in 8% of the population.

The idea that the chromosome could come from Genghis appeared to be confirmed by the finding that it was carried by a third of the Hazara tribe, which lives on the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tribe has always claimed to descend from Genghis.

The Mongol ruler was born into a local clan that had lost most of its influence by the time he was in his teens. He set about rebuilding a power base that grew into a 200,000-strong army of legendary brutality.

Entire cities were slaughtered while the Mongol hordes looted their way across Asia. But while Genghis allowed his commanders their pick of the material spoils, he demanded the women were brought to him for systematic rape or to serve as concubines.

By the time of his death aged around 65, Genghis’s empire stretched from the South China Sea to the Persian Gulf.

His four legitimate sons appear to have continued the family tradition of sexual excess and empire-building, as did two of his grandsons: Kublai Khan conquered southern China and founded the Yuan dynasty of Chinese emperors and Batu sacked Kiev and invaded Hungary and Poland.

Their dissemination of Genghis’s chromosome no doubt helped to make it the most successful in history, which is why it appears to be carried by more men on the planet than any other version.

Researchers have also established an apparent link between frequency of sexual intercourse and the birth of sons, which is why Genghis would have produced more male progeny. More boys than girls are born in the first year of marriage when couples are assumed to have more sex.

Other studies have found that frequent intercourse raises testosterone levels, increasing the chances of the Y chromosome being successful.

This link suggests why the Y chromosome is comparatively lacking in variance – Stone Age males competed violently for women, allowing only a small minority of males to mate:

A group of Linearbandkeramik people at Talheim, Germany were previously found to have died at the same time, probably in a massacre, and the authors were able to ask some searching questions of their skeletons. The isotope signatures of strontium, oxygen and carbon, which gave information on diet and childhood region, showed up three groups which correlated with hereditary traits (derived previously from the analysis of the teeth). In the local group, there were many local children but no adult women, suggesting they had been selectively taken alive at the time of the massacre.

This review of Jonathan Gottschall's The Rape of Troy, argues Homer’s Iliad reflects inter-male competition for women during the Greek Dark Ages:

His primary concern is with Homeric society, referring ‘not so much to Homer’s fictional construction as to a specific scholarly reconstruction of the real world from which the epics emerged’ (3). In his first two chapters he synthesises classical and archaeological scholarship to build up a persuasive case for reading the Iliad and the Odyssey as offering a reflection, magnified up to the epic scale, of the society in which the poems were composed. Crucially, this is not the society of Mycenaean Greece itself, with its palaces and treasures signifying rich cities and kingdoms. Instead it is that of Dark Age Greece, an impoverished world of small tribes led by chiefs more like the big men of other pre-state societies than the kings of most translations of Homer. It is a world too of pervasive male violence. In his third chapter, which draws heavily on evolutionary psychology and comparative anthropology, Gottschall argues that this violence is directed above all toward the goal of reproductive dominance in a polygynous society.

The next three chapters concentrate on the epics themselves. Chapter 4 points out the crucial significance of conflicts over women in Homer: the Trojan war itself, fought over Helen; the argument between Agamemnon and Achilles over Briseis that triggers the events of the Iliad; the slaughter of Penelope’s suitors, which marks the crescendo of the Odyssey. Beyond these specific fights over specific women, Gottschall notes the pervasive references in the epic to raiding for women and the culmination of the siege of Troy in the mass rape and enslavement of the Trojan women. Chapters 5 and 6 consider the premium on status among Homeric men and the ways in which the ‘mating preferences’ of women in Homeric society reinforce the culture of male violence ‘through an active system of sexual and reputational rewards to men with powerful bodies, combative dispositions, and courageous spirits’ (117).

Gottschall makes a crucial mistake: the mating preferences of women had no bearing on mating outcomes. Men competed for women in Homeric society, the outcomes deciding male reproductive success. Female choice had little to do with it. The strongest males would gather a harem of females and rape them. Simple as that. At no point does female preference have any influence on events whatsoever. As with the German neolithic massacre, men fought and the conquerors raped the women.

As it is complex and aimed at scientists, I present the meat of the argument below:

A lot of maternal lineages (mtDNA) also appear to be of Paleolithic origin (e.g. H1, H3, U5 or V) based on ancient DNA tests. What a lot of people forget is that there is also no need of a large-scale exodus for patrilineal lineages to be replaced fairly quickly. Here is why:

Polygamy. Unlike women, men are not limited in the number of children they can procreate. Men with power typically have more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies, where polygamy was often the norm for chieftains and kings.

Status & Power. Equipped with Bronze weapons and horses, the Indo-Europeans would have easily subjugated the Neolithic farmers and with even greater ease Europe’s last hunter-gatherers.If they did not exterminate the indigenous men, the newcomers would have become the new ruling class, with a multitude of local kings, chieftains and noblemen (Bronze-Age Celts and Germans lived in small village communities with a chief, each part of a small tribe headed by a king) with higher reproductive opportunities than average.

Gender imbalance. Invading armies normally have far more men than women. Men must therefore find women in the conquered population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.

Aggressive warfare. The Indo-Europeans were a warlike people with a strong heroic code emphasising courage and military prowess. Their superior technology (metal weapons, wheeled vehicles and warhorses) and attitude to life would have allowed them to slaughter any population that did not have organised armies with metal weapons (i.e. anybody except the Middle-Eastern civilizations).

Genetic predisposition to conceive boys. The main role of the Y-chromosome in man’s body is to create sperm. Haplogroups are determined based on mutations differentiating Y-chromosomes. Each mutation is liable to affect sperm production and sperm motility. Preliminary research has already established a link between certain haplogroups and increased or reduced sperm motility. The higher the motility, the higher the chances of conceiving a boy. It is absolutely possible that R1b could confer a bias toward more male offspring. Even a slightly higher percentage of male births would significantly contribute to the replacement of other lineages with the accumulation effect building up over a few millennia. Not all R1b subclades might have this boy bias. The bias only exist in relation to other haplogroups found in a same population. It is very possible that the fairly recent R1b subclades of Western Europe had a significant advantage compared to the older haplogroups in that region, notably haplogroup I2 and E-V13.

Replacement of patrilineal lineages following this model quickly becomes exponential. Imagine 100 Indo-European men conquering a tribe of 1000 indigenous Europeans (a ratio of 1:10). War casualties have resulted in a higher proportion of women in the conquered population. Let’s say that the surviving population is composed of 700 women and 300 men. Let’s suppose that the victorious Indo-European men end up having twice as many children reaching adulthood as the men of the vanquished tribe. There is a number of reasons for that. The winners would take more wives, or take concubines, or even rape women of the vanquished tribe. Their higher status would guarantee them greater wealth and therefore better nutrition for their offspring, increasing the chances of reaching adulthood and procreating themselves. An offspring ratio of 2 to 1 for men is actually a conservative estimate, as it is totally conceivable that Bronze-Age sensibilities would have resulted in killing most of the men on the losing side, and raping their women (as attested by the Old Testament). Even so, it would only take a few generations for the winning Y-DNA lineages to become the majority. For instance, if the first generation of Indo-Europeans had two surviving sons per man, against only one per indigenous man, the number of Indo-European paternal lineages would pass to 200 individuals at the second generation, 400 at the third, 800 at the fourth and 1600 at the fifth, and so on. During that time indigenous lineages would only stagnate at 300 individuals for each generation.

Based on such a scenario, the R1b lineages would have quickly overwhelmed the local lineages. Even if the Indo-European conquerors had only slightly more children than the local men, R1b lineages would become dominant within a few centuries. Celtic culture lasted for over 1000 years in Continental Europe before the Roman conquest putting an end to the privileges of the chieftains and nobility. This is more than enough time for R1b lineages to reach 50 to 80% of the population.

The importance of male physical prowess in procuring sex is illustrated in the David Lynch movie Mulholland Drive. Film director Adam Kesher drives home to his mountaintop mansion to find his wife in bed with a low class, southern bad-ass. When he tries to deface her jewelery in revenge for his cuckolding, Mr Muscles breaks his nose and kicks him out of his own house. I recall an interesting post on Roissy's blog about the possibility of physical confrontation in pursuit of sex. The post and its responses ended in some confusion, with fighting being accepted as the only option in certain situations, however honed an individual's Game. Speaking bluntly, the schizoid, high-IQ males frequenting Roissy's Blog are certain to come off second-best in physical confrontations with embodied lower-class males (hence their confusion). After all, few middle class Anglosphere males have had a full one on one fight with another male since puberty, so 'fight' really means 'a beating', as in Mulholland Drive.

In sum, Game can be handily undercut by physical prowess, even in a modern context - let alone twelfth century Mongolia. Roissy and other Game experts persistently refuse to address this fact, a telling omission. Within a limited context, their prescriptions have value; beyond the middle class world, they have none. This is subliminally adumbrated by the British lower-class word for middle-class males: 'wankers' (masturbators). Middle class males are thus pithily denigrated as males reduced to masturbating by virtue of their limited physical prowess in intra-male competition for females. Doubtless there is truth in this assessment: middle class, intelligent males across the Anglosphere perpetually lament their sexual disenfranchisment before lower-class, animalistic sociopaths who 'get more ass than a toilet seat'.

If I were a betting man, I would say that Game represents 20% of sexual success, at best. Coercive male power provides the remaining 80% of variance, both historically and in contemporary society. As I argued in my previous New Year post, the evidence suggests that most women find sex revolting. This sexual indifference is exactly what we would expect if female sexual choice never 'evolved'. Never having 'mattered' throughout reproductive history, female sexuality never 'evolved' since there no reason for it to do so.

Males continually project masculine logic onto female sexual preference since male sexuality is eminently logical - men like youth, large breasts, small features and long legs because those are reproductive advantages. Unfortunately, females never had to evolve such clear-cut, logical preferences since intra-male sexual competition obviated such developments. In sum, female sexual choices are illogical because they lack any coherent sexual instinct - which explains the reproductive success of thugs, bums, retards and other male misfits and the relative sexual failure of the intelligent, articulate and successful. It also explains why most 'alpha' theories of Game are unsuccessful in practice, and often confuse sheer physical prowess for complex psycho-sexual traits like confidence and 'social-dominance'.

Though intra-male competition might have been harsh for non-warrior males, at least it ensured the relative fitness of human populations. For evidence of the genetic and social anarchy attendant on allowing inchoate female sexuality free reign, just look around any post-feminist Anglosphere society.

69 comments:

The difference between an Anglobitch and a foreign/non-Western female is that, quite simply expressed:

One has been liberated by the selfish individualism of the modern industrial capitalist market from the "tyranny" of patriarchal strictures which previously governed female socio-sexual behavior, whereas the other is firmly under the supervision of an overarching male cultural traditionalism.

It is a universal truth that women are, in general, a fairly homogeneous bunch (i.e. the sociological phenomenon of the so-called female "hive mind"). As we all know, on any Gaussian distribution, it is only men who exhibit a wide degree of variation in terms of all major characterological traits, with men clustering towards both extremes of the bell curve and with women normally clustering around the midpoint. It is men who are the more interesting of both sexes; women only become interesting because of endocrinological/reproductive reasons, but never in and of themselves.

With that said, the difference between an Anglobitch and a foreign/non-Western female is very slender indeed. Whatever differences exist between both types of female are generally of socio-economic (and sometimes of psychometric) origin and dependent on the presence or absence of patriarchy. If the non-Western female is somehow magically transferred from her Third World environment and placed in a modern industrial capitalist Anglo-Saxon matriarchy, she would promptly assume all of the worst traits of the Anglobitch tout de suite! As a matter of fact, it seems certain that forming liaisons with non-Western females is no panacea to the problem of the Anglobitch, unless one is prepared to go native.

Unfortunately for all of us, Scarecrow came to take the "Red Pill": he found himself wrapped up in radically anti-humanist ideology. I implore you to consider that all people, women and men alike, have the opportunity to be free, now, from whatever savage impediments to liberty *may have* once plagued their early ancestors. Anti-feminism of this sort is anti-human, anti-liberty, horribly and inaccurately stark, and cult-like in its alienation from modern conceptions of individual freedom. The way to happiness is not through a purposeful regression toward savagery, but toward altruism, love for one's neighbor, and self-respect. I am not immune to cynicism of the type found on blogs - and in comments - like these; I too have flirted with the Red Pill, in my most delusional and depressive moments. So I have compassion for its adherents. Still, I must post anonymously, because men who think they're beasts attack opponents like beasts. I have the right to avoid that risk.

To my mind, that's what makes Game Theory particularly dangerous for men. The game theorists significantly underestimate the cultural/legal power feminist society has given the Anglo-American female. Men who continue to pursue them CANNOT do so on equal terms because men are disenfrancished.

They also don't take into account the contempt for males that feminism feeds into Anglo-American women's minds; and the desire for female supremacy that motivates most of them.

Take these two things together, and Game Theory is a perfect triangulation for a man to fall into a false allegation of some kind; or stuck supporting a lot of illegitimate kids.

This is a powerful post, Rookh, that was heading in the right direction, that is, until I encountered the comment "the evidence suggests that most women find sex revolting", with reference to their "sexual indifference". I patently disagree with this. Women have a powerful sex drive, but it is very different to men's. Indeed in many ways, I would even venture to suggest that a woman who "discovers" the most primal reaches of her sexuality is likely to become overwhelmed by it in ways that men never can. Once a woman ventures beyond the gates of the forbidden, she will enjoy fruits that will weigh heavily on her ability to return to normality. To understand where I am coming from, Anais Nin provides some insights.

At a deep level, many women do like the rough stuff. They also prioritize being provided for. It is these two dimensions of their psyche that in tandem, predispose them to making choices that men find incomprehensible.

In every other respect, however, this post is on the right track. In a village overtaken by marauding savages, some fare maidens will quiver in anticipation, excitement... and fear... at the thrill of being taken by force. Note that fear is a part of the thrill. Should we be surprised? Isn't that what their rape fantasies are all about? There are some women that get off on revolting sex... on violation, that is... on "facials" and semen dripping down a woman's face (I allude here to a site I stumbled across only yesterday, a site that was probably not intended for widespread readership). It's the stuff that often lies dormant in the shadows and recesses of their subconscious minds. This is why women are often paid for sex - it's not that women are indifferent to sex, but rather, that at some level they fear it, and they need to be drawn out of their reluctance. At a subconscious, primal level, they are aware that there is a heavy price to be paid.

A woman that has to pay for sex certifies her ugliness. A woman that is paid for sex certifies her desirability, and it is a woman's urge to be desired that is integral to her sexuality. Being paid for sex is a part of what gets her off.

I would anticipate that the cartoon above, with the girl in frilly underwear receiving a thrashing from the gross, acned thug, might inspire the odd rape fantasy among some female viewers. We need to understand the primal forces that unify unconstrained female sexuality with women's hatred of men. Liking the rough stuff comes at a price.

I would say sexuality is one area of life where women occupy the outer extremes of the Bell Curve. That is, while male sexuality is fairly consistent, women seem to be divided into those with strong sex drives and those with virtually none. It occurs to me that this is because female sexuality is in a less 'finalized' state, in evolutionary terms. I also think female sexuality presents a different arc of development in each woman's life (relative to men, that is). While male sexuality (being 'logical') peaks in adolescence and gradually tapers off, female sexuality peaks in early middle age. Perhaps this greater variability explains the researchers' inability to find much evidence of female sexuality - they were merely looking at the wrong time/age or whatever. It is certainly curious that teenage girls - at the peak of their sexual value - have a minimal sex drive, while the exact opposite is true for males. Many here have opined that the Anglobitch is at her most toxic in adolescence, which might relate to this.

Perhaps modern society does not provide the intense triggers needed to ignite female sexuality, as you suggest. Many women have rape fantasies and are clearly interested in the hyper-masculine 'other' as epitomized by Valentino's the Sheik (this may well relate to the Dorsai Game concept I have already elaborated upon). If female mate-choice mattered little throughout most of human history (as genetics and history seem to attest) then whatever evolution of female sexuality that occurred would have been towards masochism and receptivity to brutalization - something we certainly see in the female attraction to thugs and criminals. However, all that said, many women seem attracted to mediocre deadbeats of the MacDonald variety - hardly the Ghengis Khans of this world!

I want to see some research that proves many women have rape fantasies. Im very very bored of hearing what men say 'many women' want. If they actually knew this they would not be on forums discussing it, they would be shagging.

When was the last time any of you asked a woman?.

Still I shall tell you anyway, Women do not find sex disgusting, they find the attitude of stupid men with a sense of entitlement disgusting. Women get hungry too, but we choose to eat nothing rather than shit. This does not mean we have a low sex drive, it means we have a low bullshit tolerance. We have a normal sex drive and normal means not finding it necessary to go hunting, lying, manipulating to get it because we are not addicted to it.

Having said that, there is no accounting for what stupid women do, or what they allow lying men to do to them. The successful men you admire and emulate to get sex using Game simply results in fake men procreating with stupid women. This is why the world is mostly full of stupid liars.

Rookh, you’re right. That guy Roissy thinks every corner in the World is like an upper middle class D. C. neighborhood. If you play by his rules, let’s say in the lower middle class environment of any Mexican City, you’ll be labeled among women as a snob, petulant rich wannabe. Maybe you can fool one or two girls, and if you really have money you can have some game, but nothing else. As for your thesis, I have always thought that women are very passive, it’s their very nature. That’s why, as Tom Leykis says, women love to be taken, and feel to be used and molded into the way a man wants. Outside the Anglosphere, where male traits are praised, a man has no problem showing his possessive and chauvinistic side, and attracting women this way. But in repressed cultures, this privilege is reserved to the bad asses: crooks, assholes and mean men.

This reminds me of when Roissy (clueless as usual) wrote that "game" could have prevented George Sodini from shooting those Anglobitches in that fitness club a while back. Roissy is pretty ignorant, even for a self-styled "Casanova," because if he did his homework, he'd realize that Sodini was very much into the PUA subculture (R. Don Steele anyone?), appearing in "game" videos and even collecting books on the art of seduction. Unfortunately for most advocates of PUA, it was the failure of "game" in Sodini's case which partially triggered his bloody vendetta against the Anglobitch.

I think you're right about modern society's failure to ignite female sexuality. When you mentioned Valentino, remember this was 1921; women were still very sexual despite the puritanical moral codes of the era.

Modern culture has combined radical feminist misandry with the Puritan ethos; that's why modern adolescent women are sexually indifferent to men (notice, though, a lot of them experiment with lesbianism at that age). They are not sexually aroused by men since they are educated to see us as inferiors.

That's a point the whole 'Game Theorists' really miss: that Anglo-Feminism is really about female supremacy. An 'Alpha Male' is only going to make himself a conspicuous target for these Amazonian Anglobitches; and if he's foolish enough to think they actually desire and respect him, he's really setting himself up for disaster.

Sure, the true Alpha male has most to lose at the hands of the Anglobitch - nobodies like MacDonald are insulated because they own nothing.

Further proof of the inchoate nature of female sexuality is the fact that a majority of women are bisexual in orientation. While homosexuality may be adaptive in a small percentage of the male population, for such a dysfunction to embrace so many women surely indicates a non-evolved sexuality.

Yawn, so now you are complaining about your lack of success because 'most women' are bisexual. Doesnt bisexual mean an interest both genders? So why is this a problem for you? Are you losing in a competition with women, is that what is upsetting you?

Good points, however I'm not sure that the prevalent latent lesbianism in the Anglosphere is a product of a 'non-evolved sexuality'. I tend to think instead, that female sexuality has atrophied under generations of puritanism and feminism. In other words, it's a degenerate tendency rather than a interrupted evolutionary one.

@Anon 4 January 2011 19:52:You nailed it. Feminism has installed hatred of men in women. As Dr. Rookh Kshatriya claims - that hatred existed long ago. I agree with that, because I think the hatred today would not have gone so far - if there was no hatred to begin with.

@ Dr. Kshatriya (et al): I think you just explained the bisexual phenomena. They have no sexual tastes - so they do pretty much anything.

There is the lesbian that is a lesbian because of a severe hatred of men - as the previous anon put it, this form would stem from the old-school puritanical thought - penises are evil - vagina's of course - aren't.

Do not blame feminism for your own failings. ... If the hatred existed long ago, and the original post refers to rape being the primary means of reproduction, does it not occur to you that perhaps rape has installed a hatred of men in women. Why the need for such pointless discussion, its almost as if you are desperately avoiding seeing the simple truth before you.

"women seem to be divided into those with strong sex drives and those with virtually none"

Rather than identifying the categories of female sex drive as strong versus non-existent, I'd prefer to categorize them as realized versus unrealized. An interesting clue to my alternative interpretation is provided in Natash Vargas-Cooper's article:

"If a woman thinks of the best sex she’s had in her life, she’s often thinking of this kind of sex, and while it may be the best sex in her life, it’s not the sex she wants to have throughout her life—or more accurately, it’s not the sex she’d have with the man with whom she’d like to spend her life."

Precisely.

Bottom line? Women's arousal occurs along a continuum that varies from intimacy at one end to the rough stuff - violation - with all its revulsion and ugliness, at the other end. Women are sexual creatures, though it is true that in marriage, sex for them is more often than not a matter of indifference, a chore, a bargaining-chip, take it or leave it. But the problem with this assumption of a non-existent sex drive is that it overlooks that formidable, delicious danger (the stuff of their rape fantasies) that lurks beyond the sanctified, purified, sterilized bounds of a sexless matrimonial union. The thrill of the forbidden, I suspect, is what the lady with the hyphenated-lastname is alluding to. It is that ever-present latent thrill that makes every woman vulnerable to breaching every manner of sacred vow. This is what Ms Hyphenated-Lastname seems to be alluding to. It is that untapped sexuality that resides within even the most honourable among woman. It is the beast that, in the absence of love, will have a woman betray her mate with scarcely a second thought. Women's rape fantasies are an expression of "this kind" of (mostly unrealized) dangerous, spontaneous sex.

But getting back to the main theme of this thread. Yes, it is true that in marriage, women often employ sex as a bargaining chip, to manipulate men in return for favours and privileges. On this we appear to be in agreement. But we should never make the mistake of assuming that women are without any kind of primal sexuality to which they are indifferent.

So how does my interpretation of women's sexuality, with the interpretation that all women are sexual ("women are sexuality" - Otto Weininger) relate to the Anglobitch thesis? It's not that the Anglobitch is sexless so much as she is "entitled" and thus divorced from her primal nature. Entitlement, with its sterile, materialistic morality and materialistic priorities, is the key to understanding the Anglosphere, and the apparent sexual indifference of the Anglobitch. The arbitrary choices in men that characterize the Anglobitch can be understood within the context of this moral sterility, this fundamental failure to idenitfy and appreciate what is good in men. Of course the Anglobitch is out of touch with her female sexuality... what else can we expect when, within the historical contexts of the industrial revolution and colonialization, men's worth is defined in terms of the roles of provider and protector?

Women obviously have a sex drive, it's just that in the majority of females, it is minimal, even insignificant when compared to the male's libido. You would, I take it, agree with W. Acton on this point:

The majority of women (happily for them) are not very much troubled with sexual feeling of any kind.... As a general rule, a modest woman seldom desires any sexual gratification for herself. She submits to her husband, but only to please him (p. 112).

"Unfortunately, females never had to evolve such clear-cut, logical preferences since intra-male sexual competition obviated such developments. In sum, female sexual choices are illogical because they lack any coherent sexual instinct - which explains the reproductive success of thugs..."

Not true. Female sexual preferences are also eminently logical, if one considers the evolutionary advantages of "thuggish" behavior in a Paleolithic context. Survival in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies was often dependent on such virtues as physical prowess and strength, which explains why many females are often attracted to thugs, bullies etc.

In a dangerous world, it makes sense to seek the companionship of the most ruthless and cunning males, especially since the ability to be intellectual or articulate isn't enough to stop a swift left jab to the lower jaw. Also, seeking out the most aggressive males would ensure the continuance of the maternal lineage, as the female would have aggressive sons well-equipped in a sexual market where aggression is often needed for success. Thus, female sexual preference is very logical, often rigorously so; the objects of such attraction need not be thugs, bullies etc., but any individual who manifests a high level of aggression, albeit channeled into socially acceptable outlets, such as athletes, bodybuilders, Wall Street traders etc.

*Survival in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies was often dependent on such virtues as physical prowess and strength, which explains why many females are often attracted to thugs, bullies etc.*

Wrong, because female preference would not have mattered - the violent thugs would have enjoyed reproductive success anyway, completely obviating the need for the evolution of a 'female sexuality'. In a more recent context, what women thought of Ghengis Khan hardly mattered - his reproductive success was assured by military might. The whole notion of female choice is just a spurious projection of modern mores onto harsher times characterized by absolute patriarchy.

*Also, seeking out the most aggressive males would ensure the continuance of the maternal lineage*

"Wrong, because female preference would not have mattered - the violent thugs would have enjoyed reproductive success anyway, completely obviating the need for the evolution of a 'female sexuality'. In a more recent context, what women thought of Ghengis Khan hardly mattered - his reproductive success was assured by military might. The whole notion of female choice is just a spurious projection of modern mores onto harsher times characterized by absolute patriarchy.

Nonsense. In all societies, whether prehistoric or modern, access to nubile females has been institutionalized so as to modulate the intensity of male-male competition for available women; this means that "violent thugs" would not have had unmitigated access to available females without coming up against societal restrictions, taboos and various legal formalities. Throughout history, the vast majority of marriages were arranged by either both parents or a matchmaker, who was usually a woman; and even in such unions, women still played a major role in who they chose as a marriage partner by influencing parental decisions, which could involve such diverse tactics as elopement, rebellion against parental authority, manipulation and so on. Your idea that women were always the passive instruments of men is ridiculous.

Most men were not Ghengis Khan, and in so much as most marriages throughout history have been arranged marriages of some sort, women have exercised a considerable degree of female choice, which was almost always hypergamous and almost always involved selecting the most dominant and aggressive males.

Always the sign of a crumbling argument... It isn't 'nonsense' at all, as is demonstrated by the genetic studies I have outlined. These indicate extensive use of rape after violent conquest. While the coercive sexual monopolization of many women by a single man like Ghengis Khan was dependent on a fairly complex socio-military context, the Stone Age massacre suggests the same general programme was carried out on a smaller scale throughout human history. Studies of modern 'primitive' peoples like the Amazonian Yanamamo also support this position.

*In all societies, whether prehistoric or modern, access to nubile females has been institutionalized so as to modulate the intensity of male-male competition for available women*

Unsubstantiated claims. Actually, very little is known about prehistoric societies, let alone 'all of them'. I would guess there was huge variation in the values and institutions of such societies but - since they did not leave records - we cannot know in any detail how they lived. That is idle speculation, not science.

*This means that "violent thugs" would not have had unmitigated access to available females without coming up against societal restrictions, taboos and various legal formalities.*

I'm sure that really mattered during the Aryan invasion of Europe...

*Throughout history, the vast majority of marriages were arranged by either both parents or a matchmaker, who was usually a woman; and even in such unions, women still played a major role in who they chose as a marriage partner by influencing parental decisions, which could involve such diverse tactics as elopement, rebellion against parental authority, manipulation and so on. Your idea that women were always the passive instruments of men is ridiculous.*

Any proof of any of that? You're just presenting us with wild claims culled from the soft sciences. What do you think of the fact that most women have a bisexual arousal pattern (a far higher proportion than men), surely evidence of a comparatively non-logical, inchoate and poorly evolved sexual history?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

*Most men were not Ghengis Khan, and in so much as most marriages throughout history have been arranged marriages of some sort*

Unsubstantiated. Besides, there is far more to sex than marriage. Are you aware that in Medieval England the local lord would have full access to any girl in his fief on her wedding night? Where is your miraculous power of female mate-choice in that particular scenario?

*women have exercised a considerable degree of female choice, which was almost always hypergamous and almost always involved selecting the most dominant and aggressive males.*

There has been a genetic selection process in favour of the most dominant and aggressive males, but that had little to do with female choice and a good deal to do with genocide and mass rape. Even in the modern era, rape is used as a weapon of post-genocide population replacement. Consider how much more common that must have been in pre-civilized times. Tell us all about female 'choice' in those Bosnian rape camps, please...

Are you a woman, by any chance? Or just an angry Anglo-Saxon limp-dick projecting your sickly woman-worship onto eras ruled by REAL men?

Anon seems to be thinking that women "chose" thugs in days past - rather than thugs simply taking what they wanted (i.e. having sex with whatever women they wanted to - in spite of any objections from the female).

I think that the other Anon is engaging in another type of projection typical of men educated in the now-'soft sciences': invariably they project their own values and cultural mores onto historical epochs that have no relation to the circumstances of the present.

The reason women today prefer thuggish males has nothing to do with their aggressiveness or sex appeal. Feminism has drilled into Anglo women's heads that they are superior to men; and their choices are based on that premise. Given the choice, feminized women prefer weakness, not strength (your assessment about latent female bisexuality may have some relevance here).

The effeminate metrosexuals (physical weaklings); the thugs (moral weaklings) the meatheaded jocks (intellectual weaklings): these represent what Anglo women want in partners. It's not based on love or sexual attraction like the other anon believes; it's the logical product of a culture rooted in female supramacy.

*Unsubstantiated. Besides, there is far more to sex than marriage. Are you aware that in Medieval England the local lord would have full access to any girl in his fief on her wedding night? Where is your miraculous power of female mate-choice in that particular scenario?*

Most marriages throughout history have been arranged, even during the Middle Ages. In the book Women in medieval Europe, 1200-1500 by Jennifer Ward (2002):

The arranged marriage was the norm across medieval Europe among both Jewish and Christian families. This was especially true among elites, but it is likely that parents had a substantial say in the marriage of their children at lower social levels as well.

The Jus Primae Noctis (the right of the lord to sleep with his serf's daughters) is a myth without any foundation in established fact.

Jeez, you're not only scientifically illiterate, but also historically illiterate as well.

*There has been a genetic selection process in favour of the most dominant and aggressive males, but that had little to do with female choice and a good deal to do with genocide and mass rape. Even in the modern era, rape is used as a weapon of post-genocide population replacement. Consider how much more common that must have been in pre-civilized times. Tell us all about female 'choice' in those Bosnian rape camps, please...*

Most marriages throughout history were either arranged (by mother and father) or based on mutual consent between a man and a woman, which enabled women to exercise a considerable degree of female mate choice throughout history, eventually selecting for such male traits as aggression, social dominance etc. A "Bosnian rape camp" was hardly the norm throughout history.

*Are you a woman, by any chance? Or just an angry Anglo-Saxon limp-dick projecting your sickly woman-worship onto eras ruled by REAL men?*

I think your hatred of women has infected your brain, making you dangerously mentally ill. The fact that you haven't gotten laid in the last three or four decades of your life may have something to do with your pent-up rage and sexual frustration. Please, it's not my fault that the average woman is looking for something better than a worthless mediocrity with delusions of grandeur like yourself.

An eye like Mars, to threaten and command;A station like the herald MercuryNew-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill;A combination and a form indeed,Where every god did seem to set his seal,To give the world assurance of a man

I refute it thus...

You must stick around, Angloboy. You provide entertainment. The reproductive success of unemployed illiterates really gets to you, doesn't it? All that gynocentric self-abnegation for nothing... ho hum.

*I'm sure that really mattered during the Aryan invasion of Europe...*

And what about the Neolithic pastoral agriculturalists who preceded the Indo-Europeans by thousands of years? What about when the Indo-European migrants finally settled down and formed peaceful communities of their own? Most history is not about war and conquest, as you ignorantly assume.

*Any proof of any of that?*

Yes, according to evolutionary psychologist David Buss in the Evolution of Desire (1995):

Even where matings are arranged by parents and kin... women often exert considerable influence over their sexual and marital decisions by manipulating their parents, carrying on clandestine affairs, defying their parents' wishes, and sometimes eloping.

*You're just presenting us with wild claims culled from the soft sciences.*

And who were you expecting me to quote from? Mathematical physicists? Gender relations can only be explained by means of social scientific analysis.

*What do you think of the fact that most women have a bisexual arousal pattern (a far higher proportion than men), surely evidence of a comparatively non-logical, inchoate and poorly evolved sexual history?*

So? All this indicates is that women are more sexually flexible than males.

*Always the sign of a crumbling argument... It isn't 'nonsense' at all, as is demonstrated by the genetic studies I have outlined. These indicate extensive use of rape after violent conquest. While the coercive sexual monopolization of many women by a single man like Ghengis Khan was dependent on a fairly complex socio-military context, the Stone Age massacre suggests the same general programme was carried out on a smaller scale throughout human history. Studies of modern 'primitive' peoples like the Amazonian Yanamamo also support this position.*

As for the rest of this garbage... You have no proof that the wives of Ghengis were coerced or even raped into concubinage, and there is no evidence that this Y-chromosome so prevalent in certain Asian males is from Ghengis himself, given the fact that his grave has yet to be found and his DNA tested.

As for the Yanamamo, Napoleon Chagnon's ethnographic analysis has been thoroughly discredited and the fact that you refer to it, however indirectly, demonstrates what little credibility you have as an individual.

*Unsubstantiated claims. Actually, very little is known about prehistoric societies, let alone 'all of them'. I would guess there was huge variation in the values and institutions of such societies but - since they did not leave records - we cannot know in any detail how they lived. That is idle speculation, not science.*

Shows what little you know. The existence of the concealed estrus in the human species necessitated the existence of a long-term pair bond, a biological basis to human matrimony which predates recorded history, not to mention the universality and antiquity of institutionalized access to females present in all human cultures.

It is pretty evident that you are in fact, mentally ill. You're absolutely bizarre. So happy that you and your followers only make a small percentage of the population. Really recommend getting some help. Thank heavens for sane men!

@anony and other well educated but delusional middle-upper class types.

Such men of this ilk need to try hard and grasp the concept of NO FEMALE choice,which Rookh has introduced on this forum.

The sexual attraction of a black slave girl to a powerful white person would have been completely irrelevant on a plantation setting,

powerful vs weak as the rule on a plantation means he sees her,takes her and fucks her and then she gives birth; there is no choice or relationship as anon implies or wishes there was.it cannot be more simple than that.this may prove difficult for a liberaly educated British/Anlgo and usually unemployed educated Wasp to get his head round.If he needs to have the romanticism beaten out of him then so be it.

He insults the slave girl even further by implying she was stupid enough to view him as a 'partner' if that is not middle class patronising then God alone knows what is!!!

Anon's statement above represents the disgusting feminist romanticsm which is brought to bear in his analysis of history.Yet this represents the view of men of that strata of society.

Another bizarre assumption anon makes is that because something is written in law that social elites (i.e. elite males) will abide by it. The very fact that they ARE elites discredits this assumption. For example, many medieval English Kings were homosexual (William II, Edward II, Richard I, Richard II), yet the law of the day considered homosexuality a crime. Well, who was going to stop the King doing what he wanted? His kingdom, his rules. Similarly, many if not most heterosexual English monarchs fathered large numbers of illegitimate children (Henry I is thought to have had hundreds of children). This was a function of power and wealth, not attraction. And the same has been true for all of history (and prehistory). In The Red Queen, Ridley shows that nearly everyone in Aztec society was the child of a powerful male. Again, no Game involved: just power of life and death. And in Asiatic cultures, this authoritarian sexual dynamic is even more pronounced. The Islamic world long nurtured a culture of sexual concubinage in which female opinions about partners/positions/anything counted for zero, for instance.

Proof of Anon1338's stupidity is even more pronounced with statements like: 'Do you think the white plantation owners could have freely raped with large buck Negoes on standby?' Apparently, not even realizing that these 'large buck negroes' could be legally hanged without a trial for 'servile insurrection'; that is, daring to object to anything their white masters did.

I think that's what most of these Gamers subconsciously fantasize about: having harems of slave-girls at their disposal while the stronger and better men are forced to watch helplessly. Then they can pretend that the women really want to be with them because of their supposed superiority. Sort of like the way punks like McDonald think of themselves as 'superior males'.

*As for the rest of this garbage... You have no proof that the wives of Ghengis were coerced or even raped into concubinage, and there is no evidence that this Y-chromosome so prevalent in certain Asian males is from Ghengis himself, given the fact that his grave has yet to be found and his DNA tested.*

No, doubtless it was a lower-middle class dude working in telesales 'Gaming at Alpha'...

*As for the Yanamamo, Napoleon Chagnon's ethnographic analysis has been thoroughly discredited and the fact that you refer to it, however indirectly, demonstrates what little credibility you have as an individual.*

Tierney's claims against Chagnon's methodology and results were not upheld by a subsequent enquiry. Besides, there is abundant evidence from forensic archaeology that low-level inter-group violence was the norm for our species, even in times of relative peace and stability (some grave sites show a third of the buried having died of violence). The systematic liquidation of all other human lineages by modern humans over the past 100 000 years proves beyond question the normative and continual nature of human aggression.

Stumbled across this blog, and although it was initially interesting, I am finding it difficult to believe I just wasted as much time as I did reading this drivel. Seems as if the only one not addled in the brain is the one you detest. Think you should seek therapy for your apparent deep seeded hatred of women. You have some major issues. Do yourself a favour, get help.

I have been told by many women that they truly enjoy rape fantasy. They don't want to get the shit beat out of them but its the idea that a man wants them so badly that he will rape them that turns them on. Its sort of a vindication of their own desirability. Most women, if the rape didn't incur too much bone breaking or physical torture, wouldn't mind it all too much, especially if coming from some man they know already or possibly want to know. Date rape by a football jock or a guy going to lawyer school that does not involve physical force that causes bruises, broken bones, or bleeding, will be seen by a woman as hopefully a doorway into a life of leisure.

Hateful, lying, crap from warped and sad human beings. Thanks goodness for laws. Thank goodness for men with morals and empathy. Fact is women and men are not so different. We have more in common than not. Rape apologists like the above neanderthals, however, must have some deep inferiority complexes. Did your mummies not love you?

Ok, I couldn't resist taking down this comment, even though I haven't posted in a while:

"Hateful, lying, crap from warped and sad human beings. Thanks goodness for laws. Thank goodness for men with morals and empathy. Fact is women and men are not so different. We have more in common than not. Rape apologists like the above neanderthals, however, must have some deep inferiority complexes. Did your mummies not love you?"

WTF does this rant have to do with the above arguments? Nobody above is saying "rape is perfectly OK", they are arguing (not without legitimacy) that female preferences for males are not only shaped by cultural and media norms but also by violent, aggressive males throughout history who forcibly passed on their genes.

I must also add that females, especially in the Anglosphere (given how you spell mummies, my guess is that you're not American) are hardly ones to dictate morality to the rest of us - the bad boy phenomenon wouldn't exist otherwise (how moral is it to date drug dealers?).

I do think that men and women are fundamentally different, but it's true that together they can build a more fulfilling life than alone, but ONLY if both are willing to. The feminists have pretty much scuppered this possibility in the Anglosphere by ACCENTUATING our differences (mostly by demonising men). Are you going to rant about THEIR behaviour? My guess: not likely.

It's also so like an Anglo woman to throw in some shaming language - as if our relationship with our mothers strengthens and weakens our arguments (I get on well with mine, personally).

Let's not get into psychic incest with our mummies, shall we? That being the largest contributor to propagation of such rampant insanity. At least men have a chance to 'kill' the boy, that relationship, and form reason. Whereas women stay in that infantile stage, circumstantially.. indefinitely. A nation of girls with puppies.. ewww..

To top it all off, this world is about to end. As men being the initiators of truth, I don't see any ways to quickly reverse such trends. A very clever ploy by the forces (of limitation) engineering that strata, if I don't say so myself. Only time will tell, we are becoming more HuMan every hour. Well, except the unconscious females of course, but it is there very nature and alas... their beauty. This rant has come to an end.

"As I argued in my previous New Year post, the evidence suggests that most women find sex revolting"

Yeh, sex with you - 'evidence' being your sexual history. Any young and beautiful (alpha) male will quickly discover that women are not revolted by sex.

Many women end up with a man-child - a grown man who, whilst looking old demands that his wife mothers him (by washing his clothes, cooking his meals, offering him emotional support, doing his accounts, telling him how wonderful he is etc etc etc). Is it any wonder that a woman would be revolted by the idea of sex with a man who has effectively become her child? That IS revolting!

Well, no - rather, evidence from Evolutionary Psychologists who study cultures outside the media-saturated Anglosphere. Professor Glenn Wilson, for instance, cites evidence that women in rural Ireland have no concept of female orgasm whatsoever - either with Adonis or Methuselah. Face facts - I'm just too good for liberal arts buffoons like you to handle - the Floyd Mayweather of MRAs, in fact. Can't be touched, can't be hit, can't be rocked, can't be moved, and all like that.

No offense, but I'm pretty sure you have some of your biology wrong - more frequent intercourse increases the likelihood of a female child. Abstinance increases the likelihood that the next instance of intercourse will produce a child, and that the child will be male. I'm pretty sure you have your facts backwards?

I would also like to throw my opinion into this debate. I am probably misinformed but when countries have been besieged rapes may occur. I suspect this event is more shaped by sociopathic directives of the military leaders then the soldiers themselves. We don't have to go back to GENGHIS KHAN to discover this. Females could be seen as part of the prize of a conquered nation and performing the rapes as part of collecting the prize. However rapes after the initial conquest though may be little more than a form of social control and punishment to keep the female population subjugated as a labor force. As was the possible murder, torture, and rape of their children. In a number of wars females have proven they can be just as lethal adversaries as their male counterparts and that they are also capable of reconstruction activities. Rape as a sex act is about power. It is about the power to take away the victims right to be in control. Play rape is about control as is the other sexual turn for some women of being "taken". From my own experiences with such women this is hormonally driven more than cognitively premeditated.

"Women attracted to Thugs"Some men believe women are often attracted to "bad boy behaviours". However is it the behaviour that attracts these women or is it the bad boy's sense of personal power and self confidence, combined with a a degree of macho male aggression that turns them on? I believe women have an inbuilt sensor for determining which males genuinely have these traits and those who are the pretenders. As an acquaintance I once knew put it "Soft cocks trying to be something they aint."

"Biology"I personally believe that gender is not an outcome of sexual frequency or male potency. The gender of the developing child does not commence until around six weeks. It is a reaction of a gene from the mother bonding with the Y chromosome of the father to produce a protein which reshapes the DNA structure and causes several of other genes to act to produce sex organs. As proteins are chemical combinations then perhaps the answer lies more in the shortage or abundance of appropriate chemicals in the mother's diet to complete the gene actions to define the child's sex.

im a schizoid myself and i know very well that schizoids are almost the opposite of aspies, we're psychopaths - but much more supreme.

woman choice is a fantasy...and rape fantasy is the reality. tday's women want u to 'game' them into choosing u as the reluctant rapist. of course, psychos like me just mop it all up. pua game is not very effective, hijacking the woman brain is.

You're all missing half of the story: it's not enough that a child is born, someone must be there to protect and support that child, too. Do we at least agree that women love their children? That it wasn't enough for Nature that men loved their children, that women also had to evolve to love those children? If we agree on that, then it should be easy to agree that women also had to evolve to prefer a certain type of male, a type that has been successful in supporting and protecting women's children in the evolutionary past (the children only have to be the female's for this line of thought to make sense).

Feeling sexual attraction toward the male would, I imagine, result in female behaviour that would decrease the likelihood of the male abandoning the female and child, and in any case, a female that respects and desires you is better than a female that only fears (and possibly loathes) you. The latter would likely betray you in various ways influencing the success of your genes (cuckolding, to mention the most relevant example).

Also, while I realise that harems were guarded 24/7 and some queens may have had chastity belts, such facts are hardly relevant to EUROPEAN evolution in the long term: so if rape had been the rule rather than the exception in the last 30,000 years in Europe and if females hadn't had a tendency to choose their mates (shit tests), it would rarely have mattered who raped them -- because the women WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN PREGNANT, impregnated by some random passer-by with a pair of testicles, making the rape a fruitless effort in 99 cases out of a hundred. Also, making the rape pointless: the dude could've just asked. But for some reason, the female psyche has been designed to reject half-hearted attempts at sex by males. Often, rape IS the only strategy that works, so either women evolved to not want to get pregnant at all (which would be the greatest anomaly in the science of evolution) or they evolved to prefer a certain TYPE of man.

There has also been SOME selective pressure on women to evolve to, if not enjoy, then at least accept rape. Death has often been a choice in evolutionary history, death rather than bearing children for the rapist; or killing the child after it's been born rather than letting it live. So there's been some amount of significant choice even in such extreme cases. (Rape fantasies don't have to indicate there has been selective pressure of the above kind: they could simply indicate a desire to be totally dominated by a worthy male. I doubt women's rape fantasies involve men they wouldn't want to have sex with, such as some pathetic effeminate nerds. So even their rape fantasies would indicate they prefer a certain TYPE of man. They don't fantasise about rape to survive rape: they fantasise about rape because they have evolved to enjoy being dominated by a worthy male.)

Also, in Neanderthal societies, the women decided which men they would mate with (google Neanderthal matriarchal). I would recall that most humans have a significant amount of Neanderthal genes (a low percentage, but very significant amount in absolute terms). That's a million years of selective pressure on men to please the women.

Many failed premises in your post anon oct 3 2012, the most glaring being that you attribute genes shared with other pirates as descended from. I know that the Neanderthal theory is very popular among some of the darker parts of the Internet but conspiracy theories of massive scientific coverup are just that theories.

There is no shown adaptation Developed by women toward rape, if that were the case the male glans would still have barbs on the end of it as it did in our ancestors, in fact it is the male that has Adapted to reduce the trauma associated with coercive sex, not just hard rape as you describe but passive rape in general. In fact the penis has become less of the barbed bone once was compared to now for precisely that reason, coercive sex was the dominant mating form, but hard rape was not, nor has it been for millions of years.

What women "prefer" has been essentially irrelevant for the entire history of upright walking humans, matriarchal cultures merely redistricted this coercion to older females rather than patriarchal males, thus the female sex drive is an undeveloped mass of Freudian penis envy, Electra complexes and the desire for make control of sex, and a prediciliction to "laying back and thinking of England"

Of course they are outliers, but they are mostly the genetic mutations that abberrate from the norm, as asexual males take the same place among men,

Interesting article, but every time I read that men prefer youth and beauty and women don't I think it's friggin bs, and it is. Everybody knows that women like beauty, youth and vitality too. It may be that men are more prone to this, yes, but I can assure it is not much as people who point this out would like to believe. Women like pretty men

"His four legitimate sons appear to have continued the family tradition of sexual excess and empire-building, as did two of his grandsons: Kublai Khan conquered southern China and founded the Yuan dynasty of Chinese emperors and Batu sacked Kiev and invaded Hungary and Poland."

And Shah Rukh conquered Hindustan with his rhythmic dancing and dubious acting skills.

These people have been swallowing the loony pills. Reminds me of Margaret Atwood's novel 'The Handmaids Tale'. Jesus, surely we're more evolved than this?! No wonder women feel oppressed with talk like this. As a man who feels confident in himself, I have no need to rape a woman to feel powerful. I feel great having consensual loving sex. It makes me feel strong. Women are intelligent, capable and beautiful beings just as men are. We need each other in equal measure. Maybe go through some good ole fashioned counselling and come back to society when you have found some peace in yourself. Feminism is not some secret cult trying to oppress men, men have been oppressing women for time; feminism is about coming to an equal mutual space once again where everyone is respected. I'm with the women. And the men who are strong enough within themselves to not need to go power tripping. Using academic theory to try to justify your absurd viewpoints is just laughable! Marx and Chomsky and the like would be appalled! Power to men and women existing in respectful harmony. I hope you all manage to pull yourself out of your depressing holes. Life is great.